Luke 18:35-43

7. The Healing of Bartimeus: Luke 18:35-43.

John's very exact narrative serves to complete the synoptical account. The sojourn of Jesus in Peraea was interrupted by the call which led Jesus to Bethany to the help of Lazarus (John 11). Thence He proceeds to Ephraim, on the Samaritan side, where He remained in retirement with His disciples (John 11:54). It was doubtless at this time that the third announcement of His Passion took place. On the approach of the feast of Passover, He went down the valley of the Jordan, rejoining at Jericho the Galilean caravans which arrived by way of Peraea. He had resolved this time to enter Jerusalem with the greatest publicity, and to present Himself to the people and to the Sanhedrim in the character of a king. It was His hour, the hour of His manifestation, expected long ago by Mary (John 2:4), and which His brethren (John 7:6-8) had thought to precipitate.

Vers. 35-43. Luke speaks of a blind man sitting by the wayside, whom Jesus cured as He came nigh to Jericho; Mark gives this man's name, Bartimeus; according to his account, it was as Jesus went out of Jericho that He healed him; finally, Matthew speaks of two blind men, who were healed as Jesus departed from the city. The three accounts harmonize, as in so many cases, only in the words of the dialogue; the tenor of the sufferer's prayer and of the reply of Jesus is almost identical in the three (Luke 18:38 and parallel). Of those three narratives, that of Mark is undoubtedly the most exact and picturesque; and in the case of a real difference, it is to this evangelist that we must give the preference. It has been observed, however (Andreae Beweis des Glaubens, July and August 1870), that Josephus and Eusebius distinguished between the old and the new Jericho, and that the two blind men might have been found, the one as they went out of the one city, the other at the entrance of the other. Or, indeed, it is not impossible that two cures took place on that day, the one on the occasion of their entrance into the city, the other on their leaving it, which Matthew has combined; Luke applying to the one, following a tradition slightly altered, the special details which had characterized the other. This double modification might have been the more easily introduced into the oral narrative, if Jesus, coming from Ephraim to Jericho, entered the city, as is very probable, by the same road and by the same gate by which He left it to go to Jerusalem. If there were two blind men, they might then have been healed almost on the same spot.

The name Bartimeus (son of Timeus), which Mark has preserved, comes either from the Greek name Τιμαῖος, the honourable, or from the Aramaic, same, samia, blind; blind, son of the blind (Hitzig, Keim). Mark adds: the blind man. The term suggests the name by which he was known in the place.

The address, son of David, is a form of undisguised Messianic worship. This utterance would suffice to show the state of men's minds at that time. The rebuke addressed to him by the members of the company (Luke 18:39) has no bearing whatever on the use of this title. It seems to them much rather that there is presumption on the part of a beggar in thus stopping the progress of so exalted a personage.

The reading of the T. R., σιωπήσῃ, is probably taken from the parallels. We must read, with the Alex.: σιγήσῃ (a term more rarely used).

Nothing could be more natural than the sudden change which is effected in the conduct of the multitude, as soon as they observe the favourable disposition of Jesus; they form so many inimitable characteristics preserved by Mark only. With a majesty truly royal, Jesus seems to open up to the beggar the treasures of divine power: “What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee?” and to give him, if we may so speak, carte blanche (Luke 18:41).

In replying to the blind man's prayer, Luke 18:42, He says, thy faith, not, my power, to impress on him the value of that disposition, in view of the still more important spiritual miracle which remains to be wrought in him, and, hath saved thee, not, hath made thee whole; although his life was in no danger, to show him that in this cure there lies the beginning of his salvation, if he will keep up the bond of faith between him and the Saviour's person. Jesus allows Bartimeus to give full scope to his gratitude, and the crowd to express aloud their admiration and joy. The time for cautious measures is past. Those feelings to which the multitude give themselves up are the breath preceding that anticipation of Pentecost which is called Palm Day. Δοξάζειν relates to the power, αἰνεῖν to the goodness of God (Luke 2:20).

The undeniable superiority of Mark's narrative obliges Bleek to give up here, at least in part, his untenable position of regarding Mark as the compiler of the two others. He acknowledges, that even while using the narrative of the other two, he must have had in this case a separate and independent source. So far well; but is it possible that this source absolutely contained nothing more than this one narrative?

Holtzmann, on the other hand, who regards the proto-Mark as the origin of the three Syn., finds it no less impossible to explain how Matthew and Luke could so completely alter the historical side of the account (the one: two blind men instead of one; the other: the healing before entering Jericho rather than after, etc.), and to spoil at will its dramatic beauty, so well reproduced by Mark. And what signifies the explanation given by Holtzmann of Luke's transposition of the miracle, and which is borrowed from Bleek: that Luke has been led by the succeeding history of Zaccheus to place the healing before the entrance into Jericho!

Volkmar, who derives Luke from Mark, and Matthew from the two combined, alleges that Mark intended the blind man to be the type of the Gentiles who seek the Saviour (hence the name Bartimeus; Timeus comes, according to him, from Thima, the unclean); and the company who followed Him, and who wish to impose silence on the man, to be types of the Judeo-Christians, who denied to the Gentiles access to the Messiah of Israel. If Luke omits the most picturesque details, it is because of his prosaic character. If he omits the name Bartimeus, it is because he is offended at finding the Gentiles designated as impure beings. If he places the miracle before entering Jericho, it is because he distinguishes the healing of the man from that of his paganism, which shall be placed after, and that in the salvation granted to Zaccheus. Zaccheus, the pure, is the counterpart of Timeus, the unclean (Die Evangel. pp. 502-505). Of its kind this is the climax! Such is the game of hide and seek which the evangelists played with the Churches on the theme of the person of Jesus! After this we need give no other proofs of this author's sagacity.